Nike Bauer being sued

[puckhoggy 0]

Here's a link of a quick short report on the matter,

http://sports.sympatico.cbc.ca/News/Conten...-helmet-lawsuit

- $10 million seeked in damages

- 6 year timeline of incident - 17 yr old victim

- severe brain injury

- CSA and The province of British Columbia, the B.C. Ambulance Service and the Emergency and Health Services Commission are also named in the lawsuit

- case goes back to court May 10

What do you think?

EDIT: added background info.

[VakarLajos 5]

Instinct: it's bullshit.

I'd like to know more about the case though.

[SuperMan3 1]

Theres a warning on the back of every helmet that says this helmet might not protect you from serious injury, they should learn to read.

[VakarLajos 5]

"Caution! Contents Hot!!"

Should be enough, but doesn't always hold up in court.

The first questions that come to my mind center around the fit and age of the helmet.

[Chadd 916]

Theres a warning on the back of every helmet that says this helmet might not protect you from serious injury, they should learn to read.

I believe the issue they are arguing is that the standards should protect you from serious injury. It's an interesting position to take. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

[shooter27 116]

So what? Now everyone who's ever had a concussion on the ice can sue the helmet maker?

Hockey is a dangerous game, thats why we wear equipment. Wearing a helmet doesn't guarantee your safety against head injuries just like wearing shoulder pads doesn't guarantee your safety against separated shoulders or broken ribs, or wearing shin pads doesn't guarantee your safety against a broken leg. This is ridiculous, the kid got dealt a bad hand, it sucks, but now they're just trying to find someone to blame for something that has the potential of happening any time we step on the ice. I certainly sympathize with the family's pain, but always trying to pin the blame on someone just because you don't like the outcome of your actions is something I can't stand about people these days.

EDIT: Chadd, that would be an interesting argument, but if that is the argument then the suit should be against the CSA, not Bauer, since the CSA is the body that sets the standard.

[hoonking 0]

Always "you", never "me" in this day and age =/

[iceNsteel 0]

It won't go anywhere for the same reasons that these kinds of suits against car companies never have any traction. Sure, we could design and build cars that are practically tanks and then almost no one would ever die in a car crash. Of course, they'd be so expensive almost no one could afford these cars either. The CSA's standards are going to be based on what is medically practical to accomplish in terms of what a helmet can actually protect you from. This is a "I need money" lawsuit and should be dismissed quickly to discourage similiar profiteering tactics.

[tareatingrat 4]

In a lawsuit you also name everybody who has deep pockets within the suit.

I can't see this winning, but then again, I'm generally a reasonable person. I can't believe some of the crap that goes through, though.

[Chadd 916]

So what? Now everyone who's ever had a concussion on the ice can sue the helmet maker?

Hockey is a dangerous game, thats why we wear equipment. Wearing a helmet doesn't guarantee your safety against head injuries just like wearing shoulder pads doesn't guarantee your safety against separated shoulders or broken ribs, or wearing shin pads doesn't guarantee your safety against a broken leg. This is ridiculous, the kid got dealt a bad hand, it sucks, but now they're just trying to find someone to blame for something that has the potential of happening any time we step on the ice. I certainly sympathize with the family's pain, but always trying to pin the blame on someone just because you don't like the outcome of your actions is something I can't stand about people these days.

EDIT: Chadd, that would be an interesting argument, but if that is the argument then the suit should be against the CSA, not Bauer, since the CSA is the body that sets the standard.

Obviously there isn't much in regards to the hit in the article, but it sounds like a common situation and not something extraordinary like a Travis Roy type incident. I have been saying for a while now that helmets appear to be geared more towards preventing skull fractures than concussions. I am very curious to see what model helmet he was wearing and if it was EPP.

[G0NUCKSG0 0]

Obviously there isn't much in regards to the hit in the article, but it sounds like a common situation and not something extraordinary like a Travis Roy type incident. I have been saying for a while now that helmets appear to be geared more towards preventing skull fractures than concussions. I am very curious to see what model helmet he was wearing and if it was EPP.

Old 5000.

[VakarLajos 5]

Old 5000.

Wonder if the certification was even valid.

[fiimb 1]

i think this is a vaid suit. you buy protective gear that's supposed to do something. if its sole purpose is to protect your head, that's what it's marketed for, and why its required, it should do that to a reasonable extent.

bauer is complicit because the plaintiff claims they knew about the lax regulations.

and if you havn't noticed, toyota got hit big for its brake pedal fiasco. car manufacturers have a duty of care as well.

[shooter27 116]

i think this is a vaid suit. you buy protective gear that's supposed to do something. if its sole purpose is to protect your head, that's what it's marketed for, and why its required, it should do that to a reasonable extent.

bauer is complicit because the plaintiff claims they knew about the lax regulations.

and if you havn't noticed, toyota got hit big for its brake pedal fiasco. car manufacturers have a duty of care as well.

The helmet's purpose is to protect your head, but it is not designed to completely prevent concussions 100% of the time, no piece of equipment is designed to prevent injury 100% of the time. The mere presence of a concussion does not mean that the helmet failed, all it means is the impact was greater/different from the impact the helmet is designed and certified to protect against. I really don't want to seem insensitive to the plight of this family, but we all take risks every time we step on the ice and we know that and accept that. To sue people because the kid chose to take a risk, and his parents allowed him to make that choice, and the choice ended up causing them harm is the same as suing a car company because your died in a crash while wearing your seatbelt and driving 100mph. Certainly, the seatbelt is designed to protect you, but you can't say it failed because you died in a high-speed accident.

To speak to Chadd's point earlier about being designed for skull fractures, I believe I've actually seen a warning label by one of the company's that says just that - or at the very least it says that the helmet is NOT intended to protect against all concussions. I don't remember where exactly I saw it, but I'm pretty sure it was on the warning label.

[VakarLajos 5]

To speak to Chadd's point earlier about being designed for skull fractures, I believe I've actually seen a warning label by one of the company's that says just that - or at the very least it says that the helmet is NOT intended to protect against all concussions. I don't remember where exactly I saw it, but I'm pretty sure it was on the warning label.

This is where I see the M11 entering dangerous territory.

[mgoblue 0]

and if you havn't noticed, toyota got hit big for its brake pedal fiasco. car manufacturers have a duty of care as well.

A helmet that can't in every instance prevent brain damage vs. a car that doesn't stop. Meh.

It's a tough call. But if my limited experience with the law has taught me anything, it's that our moral intuitions -- that players incur all the risks when they decide to play the game, or that helmet manufacturers have to uphold a certain reasonable standard of protection -- count for just about nothing. There may be some gray area, but the law will have explicit implications for who is to blame here.

In any case, a tragedy.

Edit - typo.

[gxc999 7]

I believe the issue they are arguing is that the standards should protect you from serious injury. It's an interesting position to take. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

I feel similarly...

In a lawsuit you also name everybody who has deep pockets within the suit.

I can't see this winning, but then again, I'm generally a reasonable person. I can't believe some of the crap that goes through, though.

Though cynical, that's generally true.

i think this is a vaid suit. you buy protective gear that's supposed to do something. if its sole purpose is to protect your head, that's what it's marketed for, and why its required, it should do that to a reasonable extent.

bauer is complicit because the plaintiff claims they knew about the lax regulations.

and if you havn't noticed, toyota got hit big for its brake pedal fiasco. car manufacturers have a duty of care as well.

That brings up several questions. 1) What is reasonable? 2) How much fault does Bauer have under CDN law? In the U.S., complying with administrative regulations alone will not bar suit 99% of the time, I don't know if the same holds true in Canada though. 3) If this was an ordinary hit, why did the helmet fail? 4) How does Canadian law look at assumption of the risk?

My guess is just that this will be very fact intensive, and depending on the validity of the claims, it sounds possible for the plaintiff to win. Then again, I know basically nothing about Canadian law except it's often similar to US law in many civil aspects.

[jimmy 194]

There has to be some legal precedence, has anyone ever filed a suit like this before in Canadian court and won? There's always the possibility of a settlement as it's cheaper for a company than to go all the way to court. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe one could win a legal case against equipment used in an "inherently dangerous sport". Before I entered the sporting business I researched prior US cases and all the cases I reviewed were unsuccessful because of the "inherently dangerous sport" nature of the game. I think only way to win would be to prove intentional negligence, and that's not going to happen with a product that went through gov't certification.

[sebseb 0]

I just want to put my 2 cents here by first of all saying this is a real tragedy and I hope the game of hockey won't suffer on the long run from this. Now, I can't believe most of you guys are taking sides with the manufacturer, whoever he may be, you are saying, "sure he got a concussion, tough luck, that happens". That is very true, but that doesn't mean that he should be more carefull next time (not the case for this kid) that only means that Bauer, CCM, Reebok and all others must invest more money in helmet designs and have the standards more strict. The examples with the shin and shoulder pads is no good, a broken leg or shoulder heals, this kid has brain injury, and the other example with the car that kills you at 100mph with the seat belt one is a really dumb example. I don't know the exact speeding limits in the US, but guess what, at those speeds the seatbelts and air bags work just fine and save your life, over those limits it's not only illegal to drive but you are on your own.

I'm not saying the parents are 100% right, maybe they are very cheap and gave their only son a century old helmet, we don't have all the details, but the bottom line is that a helmet should protect your head from stuff like that. It's a tough sport and things like this can happen, but that only means that the designs and materials need to be improved. I think the helmet should be one of the most expensive pieces of equipement, the price reflecting the materials and R&D, but when the most expensive helmets cost around 150$ and there are sticks that can break anytime at 200$ and gloves also at 200$, something tells me that there isn't as much put in the helmets departament as it is in the others.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

I just want to put my 2 cents here by first of all saying this is a real tragedy and I hope the game of hockey won't suffer on the long run from this. Now, I can't believe most of you guys are taking sides with the manufacturer, whoever he may be, you are saying, "sure he got a concussion, tough luck, that happens". That is very true, but that doesn't mean that he should be more carefull next time (not the case for this kid) that only means that Bauer, CCM, Reebok and all others must invest more money in helmet designs and have the standards more strict. The examples with the shin and shoulder pads is no good, a broken leg or shoulder heals, this kid has brain injury, and the other example with the care that kills you at 100mph with the seat belt one is a really dumb example. I don't know the exact speeding limits in the US, but guess what, at those speeds the seatbelts and air bags work just fine and save your life, over those limits it's not only illegal to drive but you are on your own.

I'm not saying the parents are 100% right, maybe they are very cheap and gave their only son a century old helmet, we don't have all the details, but the bottom line is that a helmet should protect your head from stuff like that. It's a tough sport and things like this can happen, but that only means that the designs and materials need to be improved. I think the helmet should be one of the most expensive pieces of equipement, the price reflecting the materials and R&D, but when the most expensive helmets cost around 150$ and there are sticks that can break anytime at 200$ and gloves also at 200$, something tells me that there isn't as much put in the helmets departament as it is in the others.

Because I do know most of the facts but I am not allowed to discuss it I can tell you there claim is baseless although it is a sad thing that happened. I can say this won't go far. Its not far away from the court date but it will be over very quickly.

I apologize for the vagueness!

[Sed27 0]

Wonder if the certification was even valid.

This was my initial thought as well.

Additionally I wonder if proper sizing/ fit or if the helmet in question had been modified in any manner might be contributing factors in the injury. Simply having one's chin strap too loose could cause a seemingling well fitting helmet to shift on impact.

More details will obiously need to come to light. However in the mean time, it might worthwhile for everyone to inspect their current helmets and reassess if they are wearing that piece of equipment in a safe manner.

[Martin88 0]

It's stupid cases like this that take all the fun out of childhood for the rest of the world. When I was younger playgrounds were full of amazing towers, swings, bridges, etc., and now that some stupid kids fell down and broke their leg or wrist and their parents thought it a good idea to sue the playgrounds have been reduced to boring piles of wood chips. Just one example of many. I hope it gets thrown out.

[RadioGaGa 162]

You gotta think they'd make sure the helmet was still certified before bringing the suit. But, if it's not (and I didn't RTA yet) then, they can add the league he played in and the ref of the game in which he got hurt to the suit.

They shouold have protected him from himself and not let him play.

In fact...add every hockey store in a 10 mile radius...because no one sold him a new helmet...even though he never went in to buy one.

I'm all for the right to sue...but sometimes it just seems like the basis of them is off and suing someone after the fact takes the place of common sense (hence the "Caution, Contents Hot" comment from ealier on).

As I said, I didn't RTFA.

[frankie56 0]

I think the standards should be higher. Brain injury is a tragedy to the family, and costly to society. Why not do more to prevent it?

Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to force those changes.

[furlanitalia 1]

Radiogaga you make a good point about the Ref. I'm no longer going to feel bad when I don't let kids play with no earpieces or Csa stickers.